Comment on What’s a movie nobody can convince you is good?

FreeRangeMustard@lemm.ee ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

• Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  I will say, the first one is the most to-the-letter book adaptations i have ever seen.

  source
• kandykarter@lemmy.ca ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Yeah, I’d rather watch the Lynch version anytime, the new ones are like 6 hours of bland, *boring *choices and wooden performances.

  source

  • FreeRangeMustard@lemm.ee ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    lol, true. At least Lynch‘s version is a entertaining fever dream.

    source

    • buliarous@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

      Yeah the only reason it could be considered “bad” is because they ran out of money and the entire 2nd half is just a montage of shots to end the movie because the producers took over.

      source
  • JamesTBagg@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    “Wooden performances” is the only way to describe the acting in Lynch’s. That movie is a confuding mess and painful to watch if you don’t know the story. A movie can’t simply assume you’ve read the book to understand it. People can only truly prefer Lynch to Villeneuve ironically. You can’t honestly think it’s better film.

    source

    • kandykarter@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      I thought watching the new ones was like watching paint dry. At least Lynch’s version had some personality.

      source

      • JamesTBagg@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Not all personalities are likeable.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • dumblederp@aussie.zone ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Even the three part TV movies from around 2000 are better.

    source